Uncyclopedia:Pee Review/Uncyclopedia Defence Squadron

From Uncyclopedia, the content-free encyclopedia

Jump to: navigation, search


edit Uncyclopedia Defence Squadron

Hi there, I've been around for a few months, but haven't done much writing, just cleaned up vandalism n shit. This article is something I just whipped up in about 5 minutes, so I know its crap, but would like to improve it as much as possible. Thanks in advance, Fahrenheit 20:09, September 7, 2009 (UTC)

Fahrenheit 20:09, September 7, 2009 (UTC)

In defense of Uncyclopedia, I feel obligated to review this. Look for my review within the obligatory 24 hours. WHY???PuppyOnTheRadio 21:32, October 1, 2009 (UTC)
Humour: 6 I like to start reviews by stating my qualifications so you get an idea who you're being reviewed by. Obviously, I knew nothing about the Uncyclopedia Defense Squadron until I read this, so I have no qualifications in that way whatsoever. As for general qualifications, I was just named Noob of the Month and one of my Pee Reviews got a Golden Shower Award from a Reviewer of the Month. So I'm qualified and completely unqualified. Does that help?

I'm putting most of my humour comments in the Prose and Formatting section because I think that will bring out the genuine humour this article has--if you reword it to bring it out. There's some very good stuff buried in this article. You said you wrote it very quickly, and for a quick write this is very good. I just think it's time for serious rewriting to make it seriously funny (does that make sense?)

Concept: 8 I almost want to give this concept a 9. The concept of the title alone I loved. I do think you could have developed it more, as I talk about in other sections. And Uncyclopedia saving Earth is so ridiculous and yet seems so serious. (It is ridiculous, right? I mean, we aren't really responsible for saving the world, are we?) I'd like to see this developed more--will be be armed with an arsenal of the latests computers, wear vests filled with pockets full of flash drives? Those examples aren't necessarily very funny, but expansion on the concept would be great.
Prose and formatting: 6 This is really a mix of a higher score (8) and a lower score (4). The parts about defending the world and the evil plot I generally liked. But Uncyclopedia is so full of jokes about homosexuality and it's so overdone even outside of Unc that it takes a very rare treatment that demands homo jokes for me to find them funny.

I'm not quite sure which way you want to go with this--there's the deadly serious (like the first sentence) and then the overly dramatic (lots of explanation points). Either one can work just fine, but I don't know how well they mix together here. Personally, for this article I would prefer the deadly serious.

I've divided my comments into paragraphs that correspond to the paragraphs in your article.

  • "For too long now has Wikipedia claimed to be the definitive source of information on everything worth knowing." I like this paragraph, and think the first sentence is a nice start. Personally, I'd like it even better without a few things. "Sad-ass nerds" I think takes away from the deadly serious tone that I think works very well here. Maybe (borrowing from my Discordian friends) something like "grey-faced know-it-alls" or even "grey-faced editors." I like "our boring cousins." I would prefer not "too busy rimming Jimbo Wales" but something like "too busy worshipping Jimbo Wales." Again, the homosexual jokes have gotten a little old, and they don't really fit--humour usually works better if it is in touch with reality. "...we...are the only hope for mankind (and Americans)!" I would find better without the "(and Americans)!" part. I like "...help bring Wikipedia to it's knees. And not in the way that Jimbo makes his users go down on their knees so that they can become admins" as its a double entendree--this could be sexual or worship.
  • Why do we need to destroy Wikipedia? The heading is a nice setup, gets me interested in continuing reading.
"Our secret spies...." I like this sentence, except for the "bravely gave up their ass virginities" part. Perhaps something like "bravely sacrificed themselves." I don't find the "100 billion people" joke funny.
"Break down their resistance...." I would like reworded as "refuse to listen to theirs...." and you might want to substitute another word for "fringe." I don't care for the atheistic agenda part--if we were claiming to be a God-fearing encyclopedia, that might work. Maybe find something to refer to that Wikipedia actually does do--"his own fact-worshipping agenda." And personally I would cut most if not all of the exclamation marks. To me they don't add to the humor.
"Forcing Wikipedia policies on them so hard, they won't talk to people unless they can establish their notability through several reliable sources" yes!
"He will then use his Wiki-Army to destroy that place with lots of fat people, and enslave the rest of the human population!" I didn't find this funny.
"Then, he will kill all women, and force all men to wear Boratesque mankinis." Again, a homosexual joke.
"When this has all been accomplished...." I didn't really care for this. If you made them "mind slaves" instead of "gay sex slaves," I might like it. Again, I would suggest humor based on the real Wikipedia, not an imaginary one.
  • How can you help? I like the heading. Again, keeps me wanting to read. Unfortunately, I didn't find the section funny. Making signing up to be a Wikipedia editor a horrible thing I do like, and I might learn to like "its (should be "it's") akin to having your scrotum chewed by wild dogs, but its (it's) got to be done."

Also this is a formatting issue, but you don't generally sign articles here.

Images: 0 Sorry, but I have to give you a zero because there ain't no pic. It's the rules, you know, and us Uncyclopedians are sticklers for following rules.
Miscellaneous: 6 General impression (not counting the lack of a pic, which of course you can add).
Final Score: 26 I think you have here what I would expect from a talented writer who quickly whips something out--a (censored) no I mean the germ of an idea and the root of a very funny article (although I'm sure it took you more than a literal five minutes). I really would like to see this developed--please post a not on my talk page if you do.
Reviewer: WHY???PuppyOnTheRadio 22:24, October 1, 2009 (UTC)
Personal tools